DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
First Nonstatutory Obviousness-type double patenting rejection over US Pat. 12,358,451 B1
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 1 of ‘451 covers the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder regarding an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant and a location of the occupant.
The different between the scope and content of the patent claim 1 and the claim of the application at issue is that claim 1 of the application contains the collision involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity.
However, in view of the patent claim 1 of ‘451, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that “the change in momentum involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity” covers a vehicle collision with other another vehicle / entity – for instance, a traveling vehicle changes its momentum to zero as it collided with a stationary entity / vehicle. Therefore, the instance claimed invention would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 1 of ‘451.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 1 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on detected audio data related to vehicle damage . Therefore, claim 2 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 1 of ‘451.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 2 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on detected audio data related to vehicle damage and occupant location. Therefore, claim 3 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 2 of ‘451.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 5 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on magnitude of change in momentum of a vehicle during collision. Therefore, claim 4 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 5 of ‘451.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 1 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based radial distance of the occupant from the vehicle. Therefore, claim 6 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 1 of ‘451.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 6 of ‘451 covers the instant claimed computer-implemented method for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder regarding an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant and a location of the occupant.
The different between the scope and content of the patent claim 6 and the claim of the application at issue is that claim 9 of the application contains the collision involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity.
However, in view of the patent claim 6 of ‘451, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that “the change in momentum of the vehicle” covers a vehicle collision with other another vehicle / entity – for instance, a traveling vehicle changes its momentum to zero as it collided with a stationary entity / vehicle. Therefore, the instance claimed invention would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 6 of ‘451.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 6 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed computer-implemented method for providing a visual notification based on detected audio data related to vehicle damage . Therefore, claim 10 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 6 of ‘451.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 7 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on detected audio data related to vehicle damage and occupant location. Therefore, claim 11 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 7 of ‘451.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 12 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed method for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on magnitude of change in momentum of a vehicle during collision. Therefore, claim 12 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 12 of ‘451.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 6 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed method for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on magnitude of change in momentum of a vehicle during collision. Therefore, claim 14 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 6 of ‘451.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 1 of ‘451 covers the instant claimed non-transitory computer readable media for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder regarding an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant and a location of the occupant.
The different between the scope and content of the patent claim 1 and the claim of the application at issue is that claim 17 of the application contains the collision involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity
However, in view of the patent claim 1 of ‘451, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that “the change in momentum involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity” covers a vehicle collision with other another vehicle / entity – for instance, a traveling vehicle changes its momentum to zero as it collided with a stationary entity / vehicle. Therefore, the instance claimed invention would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 1 of ‘451.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.: US 12,358,451 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 1 of ‘451 cover the instant claimed non-transitory computer readable media for providing a visual notification based on detected audio data related to vehicle damage . Therefore, claim 18 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 1 of ‘451.
Second Nonstatutory Obviousness-type double patenting rejection over US Pat. 10,906,494 B1
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-5 of U.S. Patent No.: US 10,906,494 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494 covers the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder regarding an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant and a location of the occupant.
The different between the scope and content of the patent claim 1 and 4-5 and the claim of the application at issue is that claim 1 of the application contains (i) the collision involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity and (ii) non-transitory memories storing instructions and be executed by a processor.
However, in view of the patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that (i) “information indicative of vehicle contact” covers a vehicle collision with other vehicle / entity and (ii) in order for the computer system comprising one or more processors to perform the functional / step(s) limitation of patent claims 1 and 4-5, the processor(s) requires to execute instructions stored on non-transitory memories. Therefore, the instance claimed invention would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No.: US 10,906,494 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 4 of ‘494 cover the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on magnitude of change in momentum of a vehicle during collision. Therefore, claim 4 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 4 of ‘494.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No.: US 10,906,494 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 3 of ‘494 cover the instant claimed system for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on information indicative of seatbelt restraint associated with the occupant and likelihood of effectiveness of the seatbelt restraint based on a posture of the occupant. Therefore, claim 5 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 3 of ‘494.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-5 of U.S. Patent No.: US 10,906,494 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494 covers the instant claimed method for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder regarding an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant and a location of the occupant.
The different between the scope and content of the patent claims 1 and 4-5 and the claim of the application at issue is that claim 9 of the application contains the collision involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity.
However, in view of the patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that “information indicative of vehicle contact” covers a vehicle collision with other another vehicle / entity. Therefore, the instance claimed invention would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No.: US 10,906,494 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 4 of ‘494 cover the instant claimed method for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on magnitude of change in momentum of a vehicle during collision. Therefore, claim 12 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 4 of ‘494.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No.: US 10,906,494 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 3 of ‘494 cover the instant claimed method for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on information indicative of seatbelt restraint associated with the occupant and likelihood of effectiveness of the seatbelt restraint based on a posture of the occupant. Therefore, claim 13 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 3 of ‘494.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-5 of U.S. Patent No.: US 10,906,494 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494 covers the instant claimed non-transitory computer readable media for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder regarding an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant and a location of the occupant.
The different between the scope and content of the patent claims 1 and 4-5 and the claim of the application at issue is that claim 17 of the application contains (i) the collision involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity and (ii) non-transitory memories storing instructions and be executed by a processor.
However, in view of the patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that (i) “information indicative of vehicle contact” covers a vehicle collision with other vehicle / entity and (ii) in order for the computer system comprising one or more processors to perform the functional / step(s) limitation of patent claims 1 and 4-5, the processor(s) requires to execute instructions stored on non-transitory memories. Therefore, the instance claimed invention would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 1 and 4-5 of ‘494.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No.: US 10,906,494 B1. Although the conflict claims at issue are not identical; they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope and content of the patent claim 3 of ‘494 cover the instant claimed non-transitory computer readable media for providing a visual notification to a device of a responder based on information indicative of seatbelt restraint associated with the occupant and likelihood of effectiveness of the seatbelt restraint based on a posture of the occupant. Therefore, claim 19 of the application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 3 of ‘494.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to statutory ineligible subject matter of determining an actuator dynamic based on mental steps.
Regarding claim 1, A system comprising:
one or more computing devices of computing system communicatively coupled to the vehicle, the one or more computing devices including one or more non-transitory memories storing thereon instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of the one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to:
receive information indicative of a posture of an occupant within the vehicle, wherein the information indicative of the posture comprises image data detected by one or more image sensors coupled to the vehicle during operation of the vehicle prior to a collision associated with the vehicle;
receive, via a further one or more sensors of the vehicle, information indicative of the collision, the collision involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity;
responsive to receiving the information indicative of the collision, determine the posture of the occupant prior to the collision;
determine whether one or more conditions corresponding to an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant are present, the one or more conditions including (i) the collision, and (ii) the posture of the occupant prior to the collision; and
in response to determining that the one or more conditions corresponding to the increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant are present, automatically generate and provide a visual notification to a device of a responder, wherein the visual notification indicates (i) that the increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant is present, and (ii) a location of the occupant.
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes – the claim recited a system including at least one functional limitation(s) / step(s).
Step 2A: Prong one of 2A Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Process.
Claim(s) is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim 1 recite(s) the limitations (i) “… determine the posture of the occupant prior to the collision” and (ii) “determine whether one or more conditions corresponding to an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant are present, the one or more conditions including (i) the collision, and (ii) the posture of the occupant prior to the collision. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computing device / processor(s), non-transitory memories, sensors and device, nothing in the claim element precludes the limitation(s) / step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For instance, a user can be at a remote surveillance center observing image information / data from a vehicle’s camera and determine (i) an occupant’s posture prior to a collision based on received image data and (ii) a high likehood that a passenger not wearing a seat belt or seating in an incorrect position be ejected from a vehicle during an accident /collision wherein the front windshield is reported to be damaged. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
Claim(s) is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the flowing additional elements: (i) receive information indicative of a posture of an occupant within the vehicle … , (ii) receive, …, information indicative of the collision. …, (iii) … automatically generate and provide a visual notification to a device of a responder, and (v) the computing device / processor(s) performing the determine limitations / steps, non-transitory memories storing thereon instructions and one or more sensors to obtain image data and collision information and a device to provide visual notification. The receive limitations / steps are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means of gathering information related to the vehicle collision and passenger posture from the vehicle’s sensor(s) for using in the determine limitation(s) / step(s)) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generate and provide limitations / steps are also recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a general means for automatically generating and providing a determined data (for instance, increased likehood of ejection) from the vehicle to a third party – for instance, to an underwriter of an insurance company or a user at a remote surveillance / call center) such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to output information.
The computing devices / processor that facilities the determine limitations / steps is a general recited processor that “apply” the otherwise mental determination functions / steps using a generic or general-purpose computer and is recited at a high level of generality to merely automate the determine limitations / steps.
The claim recited “non-transitory memories” at a high level of generality for performing insignificant extra solicitation activity for storing instruction to be executed by a generic storage component (e.g., memories).
The claim recited “sensors” at a high level of generality to perform the functionally of mere detecting occupant posture and vehicle collision. This element(s) is directed to performing insignificant extra solution activity as identify per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim recited “device” is recited at high level of generality to perform the functionally of mere data display. This element(s) is directed to performing insignificant extra solution activity as identify per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional element(s) is also no more than mere instruction to gather data, data display and apply an exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on the practicing of the abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept - No
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, non-transitory memories to store instructions executed by computing device (e.g., a generic computer), the sensor(s) for collecting and sending vehicle collision and occupant posture information, the computing device for facilitating the determining limitation(s) / step(s) and the device for generating and providing data were considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that said memories, device, sensor(s) and computing device are anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection / receipt of data and output data (e.g., processing stored / available data to apply the otherwise mental determination) over a processor to obtain a result is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the additional element “receive audio information … associated with the vehicle, the received audio information being obtained by the one or more audio sensors prior to the collision, and wherein the one or more conditions further include a damage to the vehicle as determined based on the audio information” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A. Here the receive limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means for gathering information related to the audio data related to vehicle damage during a collision for using in the determine limitation(s) / step(s)) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim recited audio sensors at a high level of generality for performing insignificant extra solution activity for detecting vehicle damage during a collision - per MPEP 2106.05(g).
There is not inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim does not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the additional elements (i) “determine a magnitude of a change in momentum in the vehicle resulting from the collision …” is evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A. This limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic processor. For instance, the claim encompasses a user at a remote surveillance center observing real time report or data of vehicle’s speed and image information related to vehicle’s surrounding / environment – for instance, stationary or moving object(s) - via camera(s) and mentally determine that the vehicle’s change in momentum is zero when the vehicle collided with a stationary object (e.g., parked vehicle or other stationary object). Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional element that (i) integrated the judicial exception into practical application – Prong two of 2A. There is not inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the additional elements (i) “determine a likelihood of effectiveness of the seatbelt restraint based on the posture of the occupant .…” is evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A. This limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic processor. For instance, a user can be at a remote surveillance/call center observing/processing the received information from the vehicle’s seat belt sensor and determine a likehood of 0% effectiveness of the seat belt when a passenger is not wearing it - while seating in a proper or incorrect position - during a vehicle accident / collision. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The limitation “obtain information indicative of seatbelt restraint of the occupant prior to the collision, based on measurements via another one or more sensors to the vehicle” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A. Here the obtaining limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means for gathering information related to the seat belt operation for using in the determine limitation(s) / step(s)) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim recited sensors at a high level of generality for performing insignificant extra solution activity for detecting vehicle’s seat belt operation - per MPEP 2106.05(g).
There is not inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 6-7, the claims do not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the additional elements (i) “ … to compare the image data to a library of stored posture data indicating respective risk levels of vehicle ejection corresponding to respective postures of vehicle occupants …” is evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A. This limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic processor. For instance, a user can be at a remote surveillance/call center observing/processing received information from the vehicle related to occupant seating with his/ her feet on the dashboard and not wearing a seat belt and compare it with a stored normal occupant seating position wearing a seat belt to determine an increased likehood of ejection – e.g., 70% - in the event of frontal collision. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional element that (i) integrated the judicial exception into practical application – Prong two of 2A. There is not inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, A computer-implemented method performed via one or more processors of one or more computing devices communicatively coupled to a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving information indicative of a posture of an occupant within the vehicle, wherein the information indicative of the posture comprises image data detected by one or more image sensors coupled to the vehicle during operation of the vehicle prior to a collision associated with the vehicle;
receiving, via a further one or more sensors of the vehicle, information indicative of the collision, the collision involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity;
responsive to receiving the information indicative of the collision, determining the posture the occupant prior to the collision;
determining whether one or more conditions corresponding to an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant are present, the one or more conditions including (i) the collision, and (ii) the posture of the occupant prior to the collision; and
in response to determining that the one or more conditions corresponding to the increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant are present, automatically generating and providing a visual notification to a device of a responder, wherein the visual notification indicates (i) that the increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant is present, and (ii) a location of the occupant.
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes – the claim recited a computer-implemented method including at least one functional limitation(s) / step(s).
Step 2A: Prong one of 2A Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Process.
Claim(s) is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim 9 recite(s) the limitations (i) “… determining the posture of the occupant prior to the collision” and (ii) “determining whether one or more conditions corresponding to an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant are present, the one or more conditions including (i) the collision, and (ii) the posture of the occupant prior to the collision. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computing device / processor(s), sensors and device, nothing in the claim element precludes the limitation(s) / step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For instance, a user can be at a remote surveillance center observing image information / data from a vehicle’s camera and determine (i) an occupant’s posture prior to a collision based on received image data and (ii) a high likehood that a passenger not wearing a seat belt or seating in an incorrect position be ejected from a vehicle during an accident /collision wherein the front windshield is reported to be damaged. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
Claim(s) is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the flowing additional elements: (i) receiving information indicative of a posture of an occupant within the vehicle … , (ii) receiving, …, information indicative of the collision. …, (iii) … automatically generating and providing a visual notification to a device of a responder, and (v) the computing device / processor(s) performing the determine limitations / steps, one or more sensors to obtain image data and collision information and a device to provide visual notification. The receiving limitations / steps are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means of gathering information related to the vehicle collision and passenger posture from the vehicle’s sensor(s) for using in the determine limitation(s) / step(s)) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generate and provide limitations / steps are also recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a general means for automatically generating and providing a determined data (for instance, increased likehood of ejection) from the vehicle to a third party – for instance, to an underwriter of an insurance company or a user at a remote surveillance / call center) such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to output information.
The computing devices / processor that facilities the determine limitations / steps is a general recited processor that “apply” the otherwise mental determination functions / steps using a generic or general-purpose computer and is recited at a high level of generality to merely automate the determine limitations / steps.
The claim recited “sensors” at a high level of generality to perform the functionally of mere detecting occupant posture and vehicle collision. This element(s) is directed to performing insignificant extra solution activity as identify per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim recited “device” is recited at high level of generality to perform the functionally of mere data display. This element(s) is directed to performing insignificant extra solution activity as identify per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional element(s) is also no more than mere instruction to gather data, data display and apply an exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on the practicing of the abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept - No
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the computing device for facilitating the determining limitation(s) / step(s), the sensor(s) for collecting and sending vehicle collision and occupant posture information, the computing device for facilitating the determining limitation(s) / step(s) and the device for generating and providing data were considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that said memories, device, sensor(s) and computing device are anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection / receipt of data and output data (e.g., processing stored / available data to apply the otherwise mental determination) over a processor to obtain a result is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the additional element “…receive audio information … associated with the vehicle, the received audio information being obtained by the one or more audio sensors prior to the collision, and wherein the one or more conditions further include a damage to the vehicle as determined based on the audio information ” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A. Here the receive limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means for gathering information related to the audio data related to vehicle damage during a collision for using in the determine limitation(s) / step(s)) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim recited audio sensors at a high level of generality for performing insignificant extra solution activity for detecting vehicle damage during a collision - per MPEP 2106.05(g).
There is not inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim does not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the additional elements (i) “determine a magnitude of a change in momentum in the vehicle resulting from the collision …” is evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A. This limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic processor. For instance, the claim encompasses a user at a remote surveillance center observing real time report or data of vehicle’s speed and image information related to vehicle’s surrounding / environment – for instance, stationary or moving object(s) - via camera(s) and mentally determine that the vehicle’s change in momentum is zero when the vehicle collided with a stationary object (e.g., parked vehicle or other stationary object). Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 13, the additional elements (i) “determining a likelihood of effectiveness of the seatbelt restraint based on the posture of the occupant .…” is evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A. This limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic processor. For instance, a user can be at a remote surveillance/call center observing/processing the received information from the vehicle’s seat belt sensor and determine a likehood of 0% effectiveness of the seat belt when a passenger is not wearing it - while seating in a proper or incorrect position - during a vehicle accident / collision. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The limitation “obtaining information indicative of seatbelt restraint of the occupant prior to the collision, based on measurements via another one or more sensors to the vehicle” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A. Here the obtaining limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means for gathering information related to the seat belt operation for using in the determine limitation(s) / step(s)) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim recited sensors at a high level of generality for performing insignificant extra solution activity for detecting vehicle’s seat belt operation - per MPEP 2106.05(g).
There is not inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 14-15, the claims do not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the additional elements (i) “ … to compare the image data to a library of stored posture data indicating respective risk levels of vehicle ejection corresponding to respective postures of vehicle occupants …” is evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A. This limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic processor. For instance, a user can be at a remote surveillance/call center observing/processing received information from the vehicle related to occupant seating with his/ her feet on the dashboard and not wearing a seat belt and compare it with a stored normal occupant seating position wearing a seat belt to determine an increased likehood of ejection – e.g., 70% - in the event of frontal collision. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 17, One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause one or more computing devices communicatively coupled to a vehicle to:
receive information indicative of a posture of an occupant within the vehicle, wherein the information indicative of the posture comprises image data detected by one or more image sensors coupled to the vehicle during operation of the vehicle prior to a collision associated with the vehicle;
receive, via a further one or more sensors of the vehicle, information indicative of the collision, the collision involving the vehicle physically contacting another entity;
responsive to receiving the information indicative of the collision, determine the posture of the occupant prior to the collision;
determine whether one or more conditions corresponding to an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant are present, the one or more conditions including (i) the collision, and (ii) the posture of the occupant prior to the collision; and
in response to determining that the one or more conditions corresponding to the increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant are present, automatically generate and provide a visual notification to a device of a responder, wherein the visual notification indicates (i) that the increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant is present, and (ii) a location of the occupant.
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes – the claim recited a system including at least one functional limitation(s) / step(s).
Step 2A: Prong one of 2A Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Process.
Claim(s) is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim 17 recite(s) the limitations (i) “… determine the posture of the occupant prior to the collision” and (ii) “determine whether one or more conditions corresponding to an increased likelihood of ejection of the occupant are present, the one or more conditions including (i) the collision, and (ii) the posture of the occupant prior to the collision. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computing device / processor(s), non-transitory memories, sensors and device, nothing in the claim element precludes the limitation(s) / step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For instance, a user can be at a remote surveillance center observing image information / data from a vehicle’s camera and determine (i) an occupant’s posture prior to a collision based on received image data and (ii) a high likehood that a passenger not wearing a seat belt or seating in an incorrect position to be ejected from a vehicle during an accident /collision wherein the front windshield is reported to be damaged. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
Claim(s) is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the flowing additional elements: (i) receive information indicative of a posture of an occupant within the vehicle … , (ii) receive, …, information indicative of the collision. …, (iii) … automatically generate and provide a visual notification to a device of a responder, and (v) the computing device / processor(s) performing the determine limitations / steps, non-transitory computer readable media storing thereon instructions and one or more sensors to obtain image data and collision information and a device to provide visual notification. The receive limitations / steps are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means of gathering information related to the vehicle collision and passenger posture from the vehicle’s sensor(s) for using in the determine limitation(s) / step(s)) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generate and provide limitations / steps are also recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a general means for automatically generating and providing a determined data (for instance, increased likehood of ejection) from the vehicle to a third party – for instance, to an underwriter of an insurance company or a user at a remote surveillance / call center) such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to output information.
The computing devices / processor that facilities the determine limitations / steps is a general recited processor that “apply” the otherwise mental determination functions / steps using a generic or general-purpose computer and is recited at a high level of generality to merely automate the determine limitations / steps.
The claim recited “non-transitory computer readable media” at a high level of generality for performing insignificant extra solicitation activity for storing instruction to be executed by a generic storage component (e.g., memories).
The claim recited “sensors” at a high level of generality to perform the functionally of mere detecting occupant posture and vehicle collision. This element(s) is directed to performing insignificant extra solution activity as identify per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim recited “device” is recited at high level of generality to perform the functionally of mere data display. This element(s) is directed to performing insignificant extra solution activity as identify per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional element(s) is also no more than mere instruction to gather data, data display and apply an exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on the practicing of the abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept - No
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, non-transitory computer readable media to store instructions executed by computing device (e.g., a generic computer), the sensor(s) for collecting and sending vehicle collision and occupant posture information, the computing device(s) / processor for facilitating the determining limitation(s) / step(s) and the device for generating and providing data were considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that said computer readable media, device, sensor(s) and computing device / processor are anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection / receipt of data and output data (e.g., processing stored / available data to apply the otherwise mental determination) over a processor to obtain a result is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the additional element “…receive audio information … associated with the vehicle, the received audio information being obtained by the one or more audio sensors prior to the collision, and wherein the one or more conditions further include a damage to the vehicle as determined based on the audio information ” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A. Here the receive limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means for gathering information related to the audio data related to vehicle damage during a collision for using in the determine limitation(s) / step(s)) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim recited audio sensors at a high level of generality for performing insignificant extra solution activity for detecting vehicle damage during a collision - per MPEP 2106.05(g).
There is not inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the additional elements (i) “determine a likelihood of effectiveness of the seatbelt restraint based on the posture of the occupant .…” is evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A. This limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic processor. For instance, a user can be at a remote surveillance/call center observing/processing the received information from the vehicle’s seat belt sensor and determine a likehood of 0% effectiveness of the seat belt when a passenger is not wearing it - while seating in a proper or incorrect position - during a vehicle accident / collision. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The limitation “obtain information indicative of seatbelt restraint of the occupant prior to the collision, based on measurements via another one or more sensors to the vehicle” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A. Here the obtaining limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means for gathering information related to the seat belt operation for using in the determine limitation(s) / step(s)) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim recited sensors at a high level of generality for performing insignificant extra solution activity for detecting vehicle’s seat belt operation - per MPEP 2106.05(g).
There is not inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim does not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
This application is a CON of 17/164,390 filed on 02/01/2021 now US Pat. 12,358,451, which is a CON of 15/873,335 filed on 01/17/2018 now US Pat. 10,906,494 – 15/873,335 has PRO of 62/448,223 01/19/2017. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant(s) are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoi H. Tran can be reached at 571 272 6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jorge O Peche/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights